This post has sparked more activity than anything I've ever said here. This is a good thing, but some clarification of my position is warranted.
When I made this post, its parent was scored at 5. Those wishing to tell me that I do not understand atheism need to put their remarks in the context of 1- the original post and 2- its score at the time. I don't understand how the content of that post or the scoring it initially received in any way contradicts my statements.
The most common reaction to my statements (I won't even address the "I'm rubber, you're glue" comments) has been the famous "when it doubt, redefine" defense more often encountered in discussions regarding what is socialism and what is communism. I could discuss my extensive experience with atheists, beginning with my own atheist past and continuing through the atmosphere of hate and discrimination that atheists create in the online community. (Some Christian./ers feel it necessary to put statements in the sigs such as "I'm a Christian, and that doesn't make me an idiot, bigot, etc.") To claim that I don't have experience with atheists is a statement so separated from reality as to suggest cognitive dissonance on the part of the claimant. I rest my defense of my statements, however, in the actions of atheists, specifically those of the author of the parent post and the moderators who put it in the/. stratosphere.
Do I understand that not all atheists are Christian hating bullheaded extremists? Sure. I don't have a problem with atheists in general, and I count very many among my friends. (Some of my "catechism points" came directly from discussions with some of them.) My goal is to pull atheism off its pedestal and place it in the arena of ideas. If that offends you, then I humbly recommend you reevaluate your personal standard for truth.
Religion is simply the worship of one or more dieties. Atheists don't believe in dieties. Atheism is not a religion.
(I hope I didn't go too quickly.)
By nature of being alone, atheists are smarter than everyone else. Their arguments are therefore intrinsically superior and not subject to question. Further, atheists are not subject to the pedestrian difficulties of respecting the points of view of others in the course of discussion. This is called "free thought".
Ah yes, the ubiquitous (to say nothing of plagiarist) elitist atheist karma whore. Finding George Carlin's material is slightly more difficult than linking to a Google cached page, so I suppose I should give you some credit.
If you claim that religion is fundamentally opposed to science, then you should know that atheism is as much religion as anything else. Consider the catechism:
By nature of being alone, atheists are smarter than everyone else. Their arguments are therefore intrinsically superior and not subject to question. Further, atheists are not subject to the pedestrian difficulties of respecting the points of view of others in the course of discussion. This is called "free thought".
Similarly, atheists stand on an unassailable platform of utterly pure rationality from which they may summarily declare anyone believing differently from them to be close minded. Despite the obvious hypocrisy of this practice (see "free thought", above), the aforementioned platform protects them from the inverse application of the term (hypocrite).
Under their intrinsic immunity to the inverse application of their accusations, atheists are capable of making statements such as "Enforcing your beliefs in moral absolutes upon others is wrong." without being concerned with the paradox such statements represent.
Still further related to the "platform" explained above, atheists may make any convenient reference to the evils of world religion (whose proof is subject to the provisions outlined in point one), without applying this analysis to practiced atheism (such as that of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot).
Atheists may, because they Possess Absolute Truth Of The Universe, ignore any distinction non atheists make between belief and scientific fact. Atheists may also ignore any statement that non-atheist belief is incapable of conflicting with scientific fact, and may instead characterize the speaker as a close minded hypocrite.
Atheists may also post any sort of long winded plagiarist drivel on Slashdot and get 5 points of karma automatically, due to overwhelming bias among the moderators.
Why is it surprising, then, that atheists so often make the following "scientific" analysis?
I had a bad experience with religion.
My angst over this proves God doesn't exist.
My religion was an evil mind control plot.
All religions are evil.
All religious people (all the countless billions I've never met) are evil.
In summary, then, your argument is well supported by your beliefs. However, because my religion teaches common respect (Christianity), I cannot subscribe to your argument.
That's an odd point of view. Those issues are the same at any newly founded business, whether public or private.
Privately funded companies don't have to do accounting parlor tricks to keep ignorant investors happy. A privately funded company means there is an actual stake in the company, not just a stock among thousands of others in some day trader's portfolio. While I don't necessarily oppose the idea of public corporations in general, I think the current cultural gulf between technology and technophobes more than explains my point of view with regard to financing technology companies.
As for established, Fortune 1000 companies(read "megacorps"), the lessons about working for them was taught during the last recession.
My first question in a job interview is: Are you publicly traded?
"Yes" means you are choosing to work for technophobic investors who know nothing about what you do and live every day with their finger on the trigger of the stock which either financed your first year's salary or provides sufficient cash flow to maintain that salary. Investors are emotional and stupid. The memo itself actually says that the company is being forced by the market to sit on top of huge heaps of cash in order to make the numbers dance the right way on their financials.
No means I'll continue the interview, but I'd never work for bastards like this, regardless of who finances the company.
I'm confused. Either your troll ate my sarcasm, or my sarcasm trolled you. If the former, then I bow before your l33t hairy trollness. If the latter, then I am guilty of involuntary trollness and throw myself at the mercy of the mods.
In addition to the interoperability problems mentioned by the other poster, Cisco engages in the same sort of predatory business practices as Microsoft.
They engage in shakedowns, character assassination, and bribery to secure their market share.
I agree, man. This is about as funny as taking a hot iron to a burn patient and screaming "April Fools!" just before applying the wool setting to the terrified victim's skin grafts.
I think it's sad that such an outrageous prank will ultimately turn out not to be funny, but that's the price of selling out, Taco.
Sales of books on java briefly soared today according to officials at Amazon.com.
Investigations into the recent run on java books using "customers buying this book also bought" listings yielded inconclusive results, leading to a dead end of books on masturbation.
Leaking fuel? As in liquid fuel? Since when can the shuttle carry up payloads with liquid fuel?
Following the Challenger explosion, one of the safety regs imposed was that no payload could have liquid fuel. This required the Galileo team to adjust the launch trajectory for the spacecraft to include 2 slingshots around the inner solar system.
I can't really tell the difference between Scientology and Christianity
I ordinarily wouldn't respond to a post so wildly divergent from topic, but I consider the insightful mod you received as my personal go ahead on the part of/. moderators to engage you in this discussion.
The question between us is, what do I understand that you do not, what are you capable of understanding, and what are you willing to understand. The very question betrays an incredible ignorance with regard to religious matters whose sheer scope defies response. The only way I could compare it would be to hold modern atheists responsible for the Stalinist purges or Pol Pot's killing fields because they were atheist regimes. One given to applying blame for evil in the context of stereotype might well make such accusations.
This brings us to the matter of what I think you are capable of understanding. Since I believe the condition to which I referred above is a matter of decision on your part rather than reason, I think you could understand much if you chose to acknowledge that others have as much right as you to decide what is important to them.
As for what you are willing to understand, I fear that you, like all bigots, have chosen not to understand for fear of facing what that understanding might mean. I certainly invite you to human fellowship and tolerance, but I don't expect it.
Actually, it would just kind of go schplut and turn into an exploding amalgam of molten rock. Part of it might reach escape velocity and haul ass for god knows what, a good bit would hit the Earth and Do Something Immensely Bad, and the rest would congeal into a rotating blob that would eventually cool off and compact enough to become another moon, maybe 2 or more.
Hardness doesn't scale on the planetary level. The physics of moon-sized objects (although rocks) interacting isn't like billiard balls, but is more like snowballs hitting each other in mid-flight.
And you think you have the right to surf the Internet while at work?
If the organization in question is big enough for a T3, then it is big enough to pay thousands for telephone service, coffee service, housekeeping, office furniture, and the ongoing costs associated with an ascetically pleasing facility and property. None of these costs directly relate to productivity, but are considered to be comforts that a civilized business provides to its employees. At some level, there is an awareness that if you are going to engage the services of humans in the course of your business, you must provide certain comforts that serve no purpose except to please the humans.
The reality is that taking away web browsing in today's world is like taking all the phones or discontinuing company provided toilet paper. It has become a necessary human comfort to be able to check the weather or see your kids on the daycare webcam.
Besides, in my extensive experience, the network abuses and virus problems almost always come from users on the top floor.
Since your comment will be troll-modded into oblivion, I quote you for context's sake:
More and more people want to get some work done with their computers and make the switch from the hacker/cracker OS Linux to a real operating system (Windows XP)
I'm a network security professional who offers a security audit product based ENTIRELY on open source software. So while you are flying around giggling over grassy fields, I'm making 6 figures per audit.
As a former systems integrator, I can think of several common mistakes that demonstrate what NOT to do
Do not identify the function or location of a computer in its name. This may seem an unnecessary obfuscation, but having to figure out which machine to mess with deters both snoopers and BOFH's, and puts the entire decision within the realm of style. Geeks and style are a dangerous combination, so follow these simple rules.
Don't put your company initials at the beginning of each server name. If you aren't reasonably sure of your future ability to identify your own technology assets, you should look into ASP's or using a colo.
This may score me some troll points, but what the hell. I am a flaming trekkie, but naming computers after Star Trek ship names, characters, etc. was cool in 1984. Today it comes across like having "shmoopy" in your AOL username.
Similarly, naming your computer HAL was cool in 1972. A Compaq Proliant 1000 in an abandoned closet running Netware386 just doesn't produce the same fear effect. "HAL" has potential as a name, but let's just agree that Moore's law kind of kills the concept.
Simpsons names don't seem to work. I have no idea why. Use South Park characters instead.
Basically, mythology, chemistry, literature=good. U.S. presidents("...and then the traffic hit, and Ford just fell over, nyuk nyuk!"), pop culture(except South Park), and Bee Gees singles=bad.
Slashdot Mirror
This post has sparked more activity than anything I've ever said here. This is a good thing, but some clarification of my position is warranted.
When I made this post, its parent was scored at 5. Those wishing to tell me that I do not understand atheism need to put their remarks in the context of 1- the original post and 2- its score at the time. I don't understand how the content of that post or the scoring it initially received in any way contradicts my statements.
The most common reaction to my statements (I won't even address the "I'm rubber, you're glue" comments) has been the famous "when it doubt, redefine" defense more often encountered in discussions regarding what is socialism and what is communism. I could discuss my extensive experience with atheists, beginning with my own atheist past and continuing through the atmosphere of hate and discrimination that atheists create in the online community. (Some Christian ./ers feel it necessary to put statements in the sigs such as "I'm a Christian, and that doesn't make me an idiot, bigot, etc.") To claim that I don't have experience with atheists is a statement so separated from reality as to suggest cognitive dissonance on the part of the claimant. I rest my defense of my statements, however, in the actions of atheists, specifically those of the author of the parent post and the moderators who put it in the /. stratosphere.
Do I understand that not all atheists are Christian hating bullheaded extremists? Sure. I don't have a problem with atheists in general, and I count very many among my friends. (Some of my "catechism points" came directly from discussions with some of them.) My goal is to pull atheism off its pedestal and place it in the arena of ideas. If that offends you, then I humbly recommend you reevaluate your personal standard for truth.
By nature of being alone, atheists are smarter than everyone else. Their arguments are therefore intrinsically superior and not subject to question. Further, atheists are not subject to the pedestrian difficulties of respecting the points of view of others in the course of discussion. This is called "free thought".
Ah yes, the ubiquitous (to say nothing of plagiarist) elitist atheist karma whore. Finding George Carlin's material is slightly more difficult than linking to a Google cached page, so I suppose I should give you some credit.
If you claim that religion is fundamentally opposed to science, then you should know that atheism is as much religion as anything else. Consider the catechism:
Why is it surprising, then, that atheists so often make the following "scientific" analysis?
In summary, then, your argument is well supported by your beliefs. However, because my religion teaches common respect (Christianity), I cannot subscribe to your argument.
That's an odd point of view. Those issues are the same at any newly founded business, whether public or private.
Privately funded companies don't have to do accounting parlor tricks to keep ignorant investors happy. A privately funded company means there is an actual stake in the company, not just a stock among thousands of others in some day trader's portfolio. While I don't necessarily oppose the idea of public corporations in general, I think the current cultural gulf between technology and technophobes more than explains my point of view with regard to financing technology companies.
As for established, Fortune 1000 companies(read "megacorps"), the lessons about working for them was taught during the last recession.
Your mail (you evil bastards) has been sent to: pr@divine.com
My first question in a job interview is: Are you publicly traded?
"Yes" means you are choosing to work for technophobic investors who know nothing about what you do and live every day with their finger on the trigger of the stock which either financed your first year's salary or provides sufficient cash flow to maintain that salary. Investors are emotional and stupid. The memo itself actually says that the company is being forced by the market to sit on top of huge heaps of cash in order to make the numbers dance the right way on their financials.
No means I'll continue the interview, but I'd never work for bastards like this, regardless of who finances the company.
I am glad you see eye to eye with me though.
I'm confused. Either your troll ate my sarcasm, or my sarcasm trolled you. If the former, then I bow before your l33t hairy trollness. If the latter, then I am guilty of involuntary trollness and throw myself at the mercy of the mods.
Their belief system espouses that humans are in the right to take life from those other "non-humans" in order to survive. ... Of course, I don't agree.
Unless you eat rocks or are capable of photosynthesis, you are a hypocrite.
Worse than growing up and finding out you were an accident, this kid grows up, and finds out he is illegal!
Come now, we can't let anything like human dignity and compassion get in the way of genetic science!
In addition to the interoperability problems mentioned by the other poster, Cisco engages in the same sort of predatory business practices as Microsoft.
They engage in shakedowns, character assassination, and bribery to secure their market share.
ah, the glory! as of 5:08 eastern:
Offtopic=1, Troll=2, Insightful=6, Interesting=3, Informative=1, Funny=1, Overrated=5, Underrated=1, Total=20.
Kharma to the trolls! Long live the revolution!
I agree, man. This is about as funny as taking a hot iron to a burn patient and screaming "April Fools!" just before applying the wool setting to the terrified victim's skin grafts.
I think it's sad that such an outrageous prank will ultimately turn out not to be funny, but that's the price of selling out, Taco.
Welcome to the new Slashdot.
Sales of books on java briefly soared today according to officials at Amazon.com.
Investigations into the recent run on java books using "customers buying this book also bought" listings yielded inconclusive results, leading to a dead end of books on masturbation.
Yeah, the Ariane is really great, but make sure you've got the right firmware on it.
As old as the Shuttle is, the fact remains that it is without peer because nothing else can service an already orbiting sattelite.
I don't mean to be U.S. centric about this, but until you've played golf on the Moon, you just aren't in the club. Sorry.
Leaking fuel? As in liquid fuel? Since when can the shuttle carry up payloads with liquid fuel?
Following the Challenger explosion, one of the safety regs imposed was that no payload could have liquid fuel. This required the Galileo team to adjust the launch trajectory for the spacecraft to include 2 slingshots around the inner solar system.
Final results: 2400 impressions, 139 click-throughs. Best damn $20 I ever spent. Now somebody pick up where I left off.
I can't really tell the difference between Scientology and Christianity
I ordinarily wouldn't respond to a post so wildly divergent from topic, but I consider the insightful mod you received as my personal go ahead on the part of /. moderators to engage you in this discussion.
The question between us is, what do I understand that you do not, what are you capable of understanding, and what are you willing to understand. The very question betrays an incredible ignorance with regard to religious matters whose sheer scope defies response. The only way I could compare it would be to hold modern atheists responsible for the Stalinist purges or Pol Pot's killing fields because they were atheist regimes. One given to applying blame for evil in the context of stereotype might well make such accusations.
This brings us to the matter of what I think you are capable of understanding. Since I believe the condition to which I referred above is a matter of decision on your part rather than reason, I think you could understand much if you chose to acknowledge that others have as much right as you to decide what is important to them.
As for what you are willing to understand, I fear that you, like all bigots, have chosen not to understand for fear of facing what that understanding might mean. I certainly invite you to human fellowship and tolerance, but I don't expect it.
It's funny that you say that, considering that my having purchased an ad derived from my religious convictions as a Christian.
So did I.
Actually, it would just kind of go schplut and turn into an exploding amalgam of molten rock. Part of it might reach escape velocity and haul ass for god knows what, a good bit would hit the Earth and Do Something Immensely Bad, and the rest would congeal into a rotating blob that would eventually cool off and compact enough to become another moon, maybe 2 or more.
Hardness doesn't scale on the planetary level. The physics of moon-sized objects (although rocks) interacting isn't like billiard balls, but is more like snowballs hitting each other in mid-flight.
Ah, finally, I get to put my air-typing - practiced for years since watching Tron - to good use.
And you think you have the right to surf the Internet while at work?
If the organization in question is big enough for a T3, then it is big enough to pay thousands for telephone service, coffee service, housekeeping, office furniture, and the ongoing costs associated with an ascetically pleasing facility and property. None of these costs directly relate to productivity, but are considered to be comforts that a civilized business provides to its employees. At some level, there is an awareness that if you are going to engage the services of humans in the course of your business, you must provide certain comforts that serve no purpose except to please the humans.
The reality is that taking away web browsing in today's world is like taking all the phones or discontinuing company provided toilet paper. It has become a necessary human comfort to be able to check the weather or see your kids on the daycare webcam.
Besides, in my extensive experience, the network abuses and virus problems almost always come from users on the top floor.
Since your comment will be troll-modded into oblivion, I quote you for context's sake:
More and more people want to get some work done with their computers and make the switch from the hacker/cracker OS Linux to a real operating system (Windows XP)I'm a network security professional who offers a security audit product based ENTIRELY on open source software. So while you are flying around giggling over grassy fields, I'm making 6 figures per audit.
Have fun with the whole raw sockets thing.
Thank you for agreeing to give me 10 bazillion dollars. Please deposit it in the following paypal account...
As a former systems integrator, I can think of several common mistakes that demonstrate what NOT to do
Basically, mythology, chemistry, literature=good. U.S. presidents("...and then the traffic hit, and Ford just fell over, nyuk nyuk!"), pop culture(except South Park), and Bee Gees singles=bad.